It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Badger Guns liable after officers shot? Store owner testifies: “No one wants to sell to straw b

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   


MILWAUKEE -- A trial is underway to determine whether
Badger Guns is liable -- after allowing the sale of a gun to
a 21-year-old man who purchased the gun for his friend,
who could not legally buy one himself. One month after
that sale, Julius Burton shot and seriously injured two
Milwaukee police officers. On Thursday, October 8th,
Badger Guns' owner took the stand to testify.
Adam Allan testifies in Badger Guns trial
One of the key lines of questioning during testimony
Thursday centered on Adam Allan's ability to recognize
a straw buyer, if one were to come into his shop.

Jacob Collins served two years in prison for buying the
gun illegally in May 2009. Julius Burton is serving 80 years .

Is Badger Guns liable after officers shot? Store owner testifies: “No one wants to sell to straw buyers”

This case , if successful for the comlainants , will set a
precedent over illegal gun sales through a legitimate gun shop.
I agree with the officers concerned , and compensation for
their horrific injuries should be met by the gun shop owner.
It seems obvious that the sale of this particular gun , was
not done by the book .


A jury must now decide whether Badger Guns is liable
for the officers' physical and mental damages.
Their lawyer asked Burton why he chose Badger Guns.

"Everybody knew about Badger, know what I`m saying?
That`s where a lot of people go and that`s why I was like,
'Imma go there,'" Burton said.

The Badger Guns salesman who sold the gun to Collins
testified earlier in this trial that problems with a form
Collins filled out -- like scratched out, changed answers,
didn't raise red flags because Collins had trouble
understanding almost every question. The salesman
claimed Collins is dyslexic.


So the gun shop in question has street notoriety for
questionable supply . IMO it's open and shut .
The next question is 'How much is enough'?
for these heroic victims of a very dodgy gun trade ?


The high legal bar faced in the case against
Badger Guns is illustrated by a verdict in June,
in the only other lawsuit against a gun dealer in
the past decade to reach a jury.

In Juneau, Alaska, relatives of a shooting victim
sued a dealer, Ray Coxe, for making what they
described as a clearly negligent if not deliberately
illegal sale in 2006 to a methamphetamine-using fugitive.

The clerk left the would-be buyer unattended with a rifle;
he walked out of the store with it, leaving $200 on the
counter in payment, and later used it to shoot and kill a
26-year-old man.

Mr. Coxe, whose firearms license was revoked this year
by the federal authorities because of repeated violations,
said that it was a theft and that he bore no responsibility.
The jury agreed.


So I guess the next question is why should these cases have
a jury at all . If a loophole can de-rail a prosecution , maybe
these 'whose at fault' trials need a panel of judges ,
... not a bunch of amateur jurists ?

www.fas.org...
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act: An Overview of Limiting Tort Liability of
Gun Manufacturers

Relatives of victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School
massacre in Newtown in 2012 have also brought a lawsuit
against the maker and seller of the Bushmaster assault-style
rifle Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people.

But their legal theory is more sweeping than the one in Milwaukee.
The plaintiffs argue that they deserve compensation because
the gun manufacturers and sellers should have expected that
the sale to untrained civilians of a military-style weapon, with
a large magazine of high-power cartridges that can be fired in
rapid succession, would sometimes result in murders and mishaps.

Legal experts say the lawsuit, still in the early stages, will face
high obstacles in view of the 2005 law, which was aimed at
preventing this kind of claim for a weapon that is legally and
widely sold.


Everybody's trying to limit their liability after the fact .
In the meantime , the innocent victims are piling up .!
It's time for Americans to stand up for some real changes .


edit on 12-10-2015 by radarloveguy because: spell check




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Very thorough, yet seems like we still need more to go on...


Maybe an undercover op would have been better suited to find out if the shop is dodgy.


Other than that we're basing it on the word of a character who may or may not be that trustworthy to begin with.




I'd guess the idea of a jury is to give them their 6th Amendment Right.

Or if you want to be conspiratorial, because Milwaukee is likely to have big fans of the 2nd Amendment make up the majority of the jury.

But I'd go with the former.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There is security vision from the cameras in the store
that show the transaction in question.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I say knife companies should be much more liable.
There are many more stabbings worldwide.
people accidentally cut themselves nearly every second.
Also people commit suicide with knives.
The terrorists use knives for beheadings.
If you support or own a knife you are with the terrorists.
A knife never runs out of ammo.
There are even scary tactical knives.
Knives are so dangerous in fact that people put bayonets on the front of a gun to make it even more dangerous.
I say Cutco should be regulated by the government.
they should be forced by the government to pay into a national Band Aid Fund

The government should step in and have all knives be sort of dull.
Anyone caught with a sharpener or whetstone will have a mandatory sentence.


Anyone caught with a knife that can actually slice through anything gets the chair






edit on 12-10-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

A little off topic , but I would rather face an assailant
armed with a knife , than someone who only needs to point and pull !



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Store owners are not mind readers. They cant know what the buyer intends to do unless the buyer tells them. The buyer who passed the weapon on illegally is the one who should be held accountable. He knew he was giving the gun to a person who should not have one but he did it anyway.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

If they can prove he knowingly sold to a straw buyer, do it. Prosecute acoording to the law.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Gun stores should be liable in this case only if automobile dealership are responsible for selling a car to an unlicensed driver. It is the exact same thing when we sell an inanimate object to someone in both cases.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think we would first have to define dodgy.

There is another case ongoing involving a gun shop refusing to sell to a muslim because he seemed dodgy.

They are claiming denial of rights.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Ok, this is like when someone comes in a buys alcohol illegally for someone else. When that person them goes drunk driving and kills someone, do we sue the liquor store? Has that ever happened?

Or, do we blame the people who did the illegal drinking and driving, maybe the person who committed the crime to buy for an underage drinker?

I know some people hate guns, hate them with a passion, hate even more that people can own them, but alcohol has about as much use as a firearm, less even. For folks living in rural areas, a gun is a necessary tool of living. I've never heard that said about alcohol ... ever.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I guess the reality is , guns need third party personal insurance
attached to them.
Over here cars attract that cost, and it's about $ 350 per year/ $ 1 million cover



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko






I've never heard that said about alcohol ... ever.


Actually alcohol has a rich history as far as being essential to life as we know it.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Cars are also not a constitutional right, but guns are. Insurance can be construed as an infringement and mechanism to impede you access to a right.

Look at all the people who scream about health insurance for that very reason.

Also, car insurance doesn't solve the problem of the straw purchaser I mentioned above, nor will it give someone's life back. So, do you think the store owner who sold the booze to the straw purchaser should be held liable for the death of the person killed by the drunk driver who had the illegal booze?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: radarloveguy

Cars are also not a constitutional right, but guns are.
Insurance can be construed as an infringement and
mechanism to impede you access to a right.


Then impede away. I think your splitting hairs here.
Rights come with responsibilities ...


Also, car insurance doesn't solve the problem of the
straw purchaser I mentioned above, nor will it give
someone's life back. So, do you think the store owner
who sold the booze to the straw purchaser should be
held liable for the death of the person killed by the
drunk driver who had the illegal booze?


Drunk or not. Owner of car , or not .
3rd. party personal insurance does NOT discriminate ,
and will compensate .

edit on 12-10-2015 by radarloveguy because: xxx



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Unless the individual claiming that Badger has a reputation was being backed up by a significant number of individuals in casting such an aspersion on that business, I would have that information struck from the record, and disallow its utterance in court. I know all too well what it is to be part of a business which gets attacked in court, for things it had no hand in.

However, if it turns out that the practices at that store were so shady, that the retailer was culpable for the criminal acts perpetrated against those officers, then they should have the book thrown at them. They should not, however, have the book thrown at them unless it is proven beyond doubt that it was their practices which were at fault.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

That I can agree with. If Badger is known to be dirty or investigated and found to be so, then those crimes should be prosecuted.

However, do you think this owner should be held culpable for what someone did with the guns after obtaining them illegally? How far away in the chain should one be before we stop holding you to account for someone's actions?

If the owner of the shop knew he was making an illegal sale or a sale to someone who was going to give the gun to an illegal owner, OK. That's its own crime and should be punished accordingly, but do you hold the owner to account for what the illegal owner does? Or should that stop with the person who knowing bought the weapon under false pretenses?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Badger Guns should just claim that they thought the buyer was part of the Fast and Furious program. Case dismissed.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I believe that the store owners should ONLY be culpable for anything, either in civil, or criminal terms, if they KNEW that the sale was bogus, that it was being made for a third party. If they were scammed, then a crime has been committed against them, by the individual who purchased the firearm, and they cannot be held responsible for anything that happened afterwards.

However, if they did have reason to suspect the sale, and went ahead anyway, then yes, I believe they should be punished in connection with the deaths, because if they knew the purchase was dirty, then they must have known that someone who should not have had a firearm, was going to get a hold of one. Given that knowledge, they must also have been aware, that if that individual who was now armed, was on a list of people who should not be given a firearm, then there must have been some sort of reason for that state of affairs. It stands to reason, that if a person is not supposed to have a firearm, and gets one, that the reason for their being prevented from accessing firearms, will shortly become utterly obvious and in an entirely irreversible manner.

It would be like handing the keys to a brand new car, to one guy who happens to have paid for it, but who has literally been talking about giving the car to his drunk as hell friend, to see what mischief can be made on the streets!

However, as I said... Until someone can prove it for sure that business should be bulletproof.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

At issue now is whether Badger Guns should pay the officers for allowing the sale of the gun in the first place.


So the cops are suing ?

What the hell ever.

No Badger is not responsible.

They followed the law for the gun sale. After that they are not 'responsible'.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Milwaukee police officer Bryan Norberg and former officer Graham Kunisch accuse Badger Guns, a firearms store in West Milwaukee, of negligence for selling a Taurus handgun on May 4, 2009, to straw buyer Jacob Collins, who in turn gave it to Julius Burton, an 18-year-old with a criminal history, according to reports.


Badger

They are just looking for a pay day.

That is what those types of law suits are all about.

$$$$$$$$$.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join